get_drug_adverse_events

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Description adds useful context beyond annotations: data source (openFDA) and a caveat about spontaneous reports not implying causation. Annotations already cover read-only and idempotent nature.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two concise sentences: the first states the core purpose, the second adds data source and a critical caveat. No superfluous text.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Adequate for a read-only tool with output schema and good annotations. Mentions data source and limit of interpretation (no causation). Could mention ordering by frequency but 'most frequently' implies it.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for both parameters. The tool description does not add any new parameter details beyond what the schema already provides.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Clearly states it gets the most frequently reported adverse events for a drug using FAERS data. Distinct from sibling tools like check_drug_interactions or get_drug_safety_status.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Implied usage: when adverse event information is needed. No explicit guidance on when to use this versus other tools, no exclusions or alternatives mentioned.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.